Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Giants thought they would have to give up more in trade for Brian Burns


WarPanthers89
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Panthero said:

I hope this thing dies. Beyond dead horse territory. We're in dust horse zone. Let go your hate, save you it can! 

There’s no hate. It’s reminiscing over our glory days of legitimately whiffing on every move to have a playoff contender.

We can’t get out of beating a dead horse until we have a team to feel good about. It’s as simple as that. The folks who always want to look through rose colored glasses can, no worries. The people who reminisce just want to see something, anything first. We know the past can’t change, but it does still suck to see other teams GMs discuss taking advantage of us. From Elway saying why they passed on Paradis to the Jets bamboozaling us out of 3 picks for Darnold when SF was already out of the deal. I’m sure we’ll hear the Rams GM pointing to the non-Burns trade as the reason why they were able to reload and get back to the playoffs.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Call Me James said:

Don’t know. Don’t care to be honest. 

The cap isn’t the reason why this team has been bad.

Wait, this is a time where it actually hurt us. The Giants thought they’d have to give us 2 2nds (many people predicted that). We caved for a 2nd and some late round crap because we needed Burns gone to do the two guard contracts. Our FAs have been fairly trash because we didn’t have tons of cap to make splashes. Amazingly, we had to get rid of Burns quickly due to cap space (been mentioned in the trade thread a few times) even as a 2-15 team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CRA said:

well, we can still be lead by bad negotiators and managers of our assets.   

I think the Giants sort of confirmed that.  They got a deal they probably didn't expect.  Which is largely the thought on CMC and DJ as well.  Mr. In on Every Deal wasn't really that good at going about it. 

This isn’t pawn stars. The Panthers leverage was limited. The Giants were negotiating more against other teams than they were negotiating with the Panthers. Burns himself was also part of the equation because he had to be willing to sign with the new team, which would limit the suitors further. The deal was also done by Morgan, not Fitterer. The Panthers took the best offer they got and they weren’t really in a position to walk away from the table and try to force a better offer. That’s how you end up stuck with getting nothing but a compensatory pick for Burns when he walks as a free agent. It is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

how you figure that, the Giants would go to 2 seconds but morgan bit on just one.  

I didn’t read it as the Giants would have done 2 seconds, just they were spitballing about possibilities and what the price might be. And even if they initially thought they would be willing to, once they realized no other team was coming close to that then why would they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Cap has nothing to do with it. You can't pay players mega premium money if they aren't mega premium players. 

That's how you stay bad for a long time.

I’m sorry. Is this the same team over paying every journeyman qb.

the same team that kept cmc on the books.

the same team who continues to extend Thomas.

It sounds good, but I’ve realized yall miss the point.

we aren’t overpaying too many players: because every single one of the players we’ve complained about have gone elsewhere and find success.

 

we just suck at team building because yall would rather feel better in your f150

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I think it will be a transition year will be a playoff team (more grindy and young blood) but not a top contender... but in 25-26 back to being a contender IMO Nickishin will be ready to do day 1 IMO.... and if we can get some of these young guys the experience/development FUS/Blake/Nadeu/Morrow 
    • in itself i didn't/don't have an issue with this. And our main point has always been that we didn't want to be one of the go for it all teams at the deadline because we have a window that has term with Slavin/Aho/Svech/Jarvy.  however. keeping martinook above market value and not combining the youth influx with things like changing things at goalie and or signing a big name as a guentz replacement just feels like so far we're kind of sitting this out, and i really dont like the idea of taking a large step backwards from pre deadline roster last year. i understand we've given this a run with the same guys and it hasn't worked and changing some things there. but we also know exactly what our glaring issues are. so to not get better at those while also getting worse/losing big time names in other areas is pretty disheartening thus far. Hope there's more to come.
    • It looks like next year is going to be the year that a lot of young guys get a chance.
×
×
  • Create New...